News When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[apeiron]

Can't fear and NIMBY, mixed with our electoral process and strong existing energy lobbies explain it well enough? I think I'll choose "a", but with the addition that the people and the government are, as the Egyptians have been saying so eloquently, "One hand". NIMBY comes from the public, not from the top.

He's back!

Nimby is of course an issue. On the other hand, when governments really want to do things, they can manipulate public opinion. The US problem is probably that the government wanted to leave it to the free markets and it does in fact require a state-level commitment.

India wants to/must go nuclear in a big way. China and Korea are eyeing up the market leadership position. So the "moonshot" effort may well come from the East if anywhere.

 

[nismaratwork]

He's back!

Nimby is of course an issue. On the other hand, when governments really want to do things, they can manipulate public opinion. The US problem is probably that the government wanted to leave it to the free markets and it does in fact require a state-level commitment.

India wants to/must go nuclear in a big way. China and Korea are eyeing up the market leadership position. So the "moonshot" effort may well come from the East if anywhere.

True on all counts, and it seems like just another industry we're ceding for no good reason. Still, for humanity at large, it has to come from SOMEWHERE.

 

[Al68]

...My starting question on nuclear is, if it is so cheap and clean, how come countries are not already doing it?...

Who said nuclear power was cheap? Still not understand my comments? The fuel is cheap. Building and operating the plant is expensive.

And countries are already doing it, despite the high initial cost of building a nuclear power plant. And the fact that the fuel is cheap, plentiful, and very, very efficient relative to burning fossil fuels provides an incentive to continue building them, since improved efficiency, technology, efficiency of scale, and innovation can potentially drastically reduce that cost over time. After all, we are talking about a technology in its infancy.

And it should be pointed out that the above claim that nuclear power is inherently "very, very efficient relative to burning fossil fuels" is a monstrous understatement.

 

[apeiron]

Still not understand my comments?

It was the relevance that was in question.

You could argue wind is cheap too. In fact it cost nothing does it? And it will never run out. However obviously we still have to go a little futher to talk meaningfully about it as a substitute cheap energy.

 

[mheslep]

One authorative figure in the peak oil debate is Robert Hirsch, ...

Well informed, knowledgeable maybe. Not authoritative, especially not on matters of economics. The fact that Hirsch, who still keeps a working http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement" fusion reactor on his desk that he famously co-invented, attempts to go beyond his field and declaim on worldwide economic predictions discredits him in my view.Edit:
I see http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Nivedi-61110-ASPO2005-Hirsch-PEAKING-WORLD-OIL-PRODUCTION-IMPACTS-MITIGATION-RISK-MANAGEMENT-PRESENTATION-PROBLEM-CON-Business-Finance-ppt-powerpoint/" which says in part (slide 5):

Experts overestimated North American natural gas reserves and future production as late as 2001
...
US natural gas production is now flat and in decline
If wrong on natural gas what's the risk on oil?

Then when I go to check actual US production figures I see http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us1m.htm" , with US production up nearly 400 billion cf since 2005, and leaves me thinking Hirsch is prone to unsupported, if not crackpot, assertions on at least this subject.

 

[mheslep]

Who said nuclear power was cheap? Still not understand my comments? The fuel is cheap. Building and operating the plant is expensive.

Apparently even nuclear construction can be done relatively inexpensively, even if it is not currently inexpensive in the West.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2115378&postcount=115

 

[apeiron]

Well informed, knowledgeable maybe. Not authoritative, especially not on matters of economics.

You may not have noticed that he has two co-authors...both economists. And economists specialising in energy issues.

Roger H. Bezdek is president of Management Information Services, an economic-research firm. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1971 and has worked in academia and for the federal government.

Robert M. Wendling is vice president of Management Information Services. He received a master’s degree in economics from George Washington University in 1977. He has served as senior economist at the U.S. Department of Commerce, program manager at the U.S. Department of Energy and director of the Department of Commerce's STAT-USA office

 

[apeiron]

with US production up nearly 400 billion cf since 2005, and leaves me thinking Hirsch is prone to unsupported, if not crackpot, assertions on at least this subject.

I think your quotes are rather selective and out of context here. Are you saying that in 2005, production was not in decline? Or that in 2001, reserves weren't being over-estimated?

Of course, if you can show sources where Hirsh was calling 2005 already the US peak in natural gas production, then that might have something. But so far you haven't.

In the meantime here is a good assessment of the actual picture on natural gas...being more than a single slide of bullet points easily taken out of context, at least there is something concrete here you can now attack.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Dont-Count-on-Natural-Gas-to-Solve-US-Energy-Problems.html

In summary, a review of information related to US natural gas production (and in particular shale gas production) does not give much confidence that it can ramp up by more than a small percentage over the next 25 years. Even if it can, there is a chance that global warming gases associated with shale gas will suddenly become an EPA concern, and production will need to be scaled back.

There is little evidence that shale gas producers can make money at current low prices. At higher price levels, coal becomes a cheaper alternative, and substitution becomes more difficult. Coal and petroleum consumption is so large in relationship to natural gas consumption that trying to ramp up natural gas to replace more than a very small percentage of these fuels would seem to be impossible.

 

[Al68]

It was the relevance that was in question.

How so? My comments were in response to a claim that a limited supply of uranium stands in the way of nuclear power being a good solution. My obvious point was that uranium supply is irrelevant to the cost of nuclear power. But I pointed that out already, so now I'm baffled as to why my comments were so difficult to understand.

You could argue wind is cheap too. In fact it cost nothing does it? And it will never run out.

Yes, and if someone claimed that wind power was expensive due to a limited supply of wind, my response would be similar to my comments in this thread.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well... wind does run out, just not on a human timescale. I think when our atmosphere is balsted away by an expanding sun, we can rest assured that wind will no longer be a factor.

Wind isn't magic, it's just very VERY plentiful... but not everywhere, not all of the time.

My view: we NEED nucelar power as a stop-gap until we can begin to add storage capcity to the power grid, and that's not coming soon it seems. I don't think giant building-sized liquid batteries count... there need to be storage in the grid, or we need to burn SOMETHING.

 

[Proton Soup]

can we not just dig down to the magma and steal heat stored in the earth? i mean, how many eons would it last before we shut down the magnetic shield?

 

[nismaratwork]

can we not just dig down to the magma and steal heat stored in the earth? i mean, how many eons would it last before we shut down the magnetic shield?

Heh... probably a very long time, but then it might be a poor idea to breach a magma chamber by accident, and WOW that equipment would need to be tough. Still, I get your point, and there are other ways to exploit the geomagnetic field... just not cost effective.

If you added storage to wind, solar, and even more exotic means... efficient and reusable capacitor, then suddenly it's not insane to do this. I don't mean one house with a battery, I mean long term serious storage, and a new infrastructure to transmit it.

 

[Proton Soup]

Heh... probably a very long time, but then it might be a poor idea to breach a magma chamber by accident, and WOW that equipment would need to be tough. Still, I get your point, and there are other ways to exploit the geomagnetic field... just not cost effective.

If you added storage to wind, solar, and even more exotic means... efficient and reusable capacitor, then suddenly it's not insane to do this. I don't mean one house with a battery, I mean long term serious storage, and a new infrastructure to transmit it.

capacitors that don't leak would be a blessing indeed. heck, i need to go look that up again. i was under the impression we had them lasting up to a few days already...

 

[nismaratwork]

capacitors that don't leak would be a blessing indeed. heck, i need to go look that up again. i was under the impression we had them lasting up to a few days already...

I believe so... I think it was MIT or Caltech (I always forget names) that made some real inroads into "supercapactiors" using various arrangements of carbon. It seems promising to me, but this is an area where my ignorance is profound.

Still, we need more than a few days, or we need a few days dirt cheap. Time... both will take time, and until then we have to consider whether it's coal, or clickclickclick. My preference is nuclear, because frankly with coal moving toward sequestering carbon... toxic waste is toxic waste. If we're going to deal with that, let's at least get our bang for our buck in a proven science.

 

[Al68]

My preference is nuclear, because frankly with coal moving toward sequestering carbon... toxic waste is toxic waste. If we're going to deal with that, let's at least get our bang for our buck in a proven science.

I agree with that, and would add that building and operating nuclear power plants has the added bonus of making us better at building and operating nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power has far greater potential than other energy sources. And currently operating commercial plants are far from representative of that potential.

As a single (but typical of the US Navy nuclear program) example, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_%28CVN-69%29" nuclear aircraft carrier was commissioned in 1977, designed and built with nuclear technology in its infancy, and went in for refueling for the first time in 2001, and with a reactor design that very, very safe, to say the least.

Of course commercial nuclear plants are necessarily hamstrung by national security concerns with enriched uranium, but to say there is much room for improvement in commercial nuclear plant technology is a monumental understatement.

 

[mugaliens]

Please post links to the valid sources that prove your statements to be facts.

This thread is bursting with valid sources, at least a third of 300 worth.

 

[mugaliens]

If the USA got back into the reprocessing business much more of the uranium/plutonium in the fuel rods could be "burnt" and make much more energy.

A little known fact in the industry is that most nuclear powered subs and surface ships in the US Navy are breeder reactors. I suspect the same is true of the Russian Navy.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree with that, and would add that building and operating nuclear power plants has the added bonus of making us better at building and operating nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power has far greater potential than other energy sources. And currently operating commercial plants are far from representative of that potential.

As a single (but typical of the US Navy nuclear program) example, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_%28CVN-69%29" nuclear aircraft carrier was commissioned in 1977, designed and built with nuclear technology in its infancy, and went in for refueling for the first time in 2001, and with a reactor design that very, very safe, to say the least.

Of course commercial nuclear plants are necessarily hamstrung by national security concerns with enriched uranium, but to say there is much room for improvement in commercial nuclear plant technology is a monumental understatement.

In a rare fit of total kinship, I agree with literally everything you said. I would emphasize that it just seems mad to cede this potential ingenuity and skill in reactor design out of old fear.

mugaliens: Really? I had no idea. What are the benefits specific to a naval vessel in having a breeder?

 

[Al68]

In a rare fit of total kinship, I agree with literally everything you said. I would emphasize that it just seems mad to cede this potential ingenuity and skill in reactor design out of old fear.

I agree completely (one too many beers? ). Most people just have no idea how much difference there is between commercial nuclear plants and what nuclear power is capable of. I used the USS Eisenhower as an example because I'm a former crew member (Naval nuclear program, decades ago).

And that "ingenuity and skill in reactor design" was decades ago. Much has been learned since then. For example, new aircraft carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_reactor" cores are designed to last 50 years before refueling. Nuclear power with today's technology could easily power the world's electric demand for the foreseeable future. Very easily and very safely.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree completely (one too many beers? ). Most people just have no idea how much difference there is between commercial nuclear plants and what nuclear power is capable of. I used the USS Eisenhower as an example because I'm a former crew member (Naval nuclear program, decades ago).

And that "ingenuity and skill in reactor design" was decades ago. Much has been learned since then. For example, new aircraft carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_reactor" cores are designed to last 50 years before refueling. Nuclear power with today's technology could easily power the world's electric demand for the foreseeable future. Very easily and very safely.

Yeah, it just drives me up the wall when I consider it. The Russians are still fiddling with old designs, but what if we'd been really funding our nuclear industry instead of paralyzing it? Maybe not, they'd be buying plants from us, and maybe given plant designs they'd have to buy fuel too!

It just seems like throwing away solid gold. I realize that mining for Uranium is not exactly green, but neither is coal. I see people here like Astronuc, and I just wish there had been more like him in the period when "green" became anti-nuclear. Truly, the gift of splitting the atom is harnessing that energy... the bombs are just a messy side-note... albeit one that could wipe us out. By focusing so much on nuclear weapons, I feel the public inextricably links memories of "nuclear" with "Nukes".

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

A little known fact in the industry is that most nuclear powered subs and surface ships in the US Navy are breeder reactors. I suspect the same is true of the Russian Navy.

I thought the long time between core refueling on US navy nuclear craft was from a highly enriched uranium load, not from breading.

For clarification I was referring to the civilian power side when it comes to reprocessing. The USA has a current mode of operation of once through loads on fuel. Heck even without reprocessing, just repacking, USA light water fuel could get an extended life going through a CANDU reactor. However thanks to anti nuc nuts that plan fell through.

 

[mugaliens]

Nuclear power with today's technology could easily power the world's electric demand for the foreseeable future. Very easily and very safely.

I've seen estimates ranging between 80 years and 500 years. I suspect the huge variances are due to different assumptions about who gets to use the technology and to what extent. Long enough, hopefully, for us to perfect a fusion solution. From what I gather, we've enough fusion fuel for longer than the Earth will last with an expanding sun about 5 trillion years from now.

Sorry if I'm off on the dates/timelines. I'm remembering from a similar discussion on another science forum from a few years back.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've seen estimates ranging between 80 years and 500 years. I suspect the huge variances are due to different assumptions about who gets to use the technology and to what extent. Long enough, hopefully, for us to perfect a fusion solution. From what I gather, we've enough fusion fuel for longer than the Earth will last with an expanding sun about 5 trillion years from now.

Sorry if I'm off on the dates/timelines. I'm remembering from a similar discussion on another science forum from a few years back.

I think the fusion dream will be far too late for anyone. I used to think that way, but managing the plasma with magnetic fields isn't exactly easy to scale... what a shock. Even more damning in my eyes, would be the reactor 'blanket', which right now would need to breed enough tritium to keep the reaction going, absorb and transfer enough energy aside from that to be a viable reactor, withstand nearly constant bombardment by high energy neutrons, and run at least 18 hours a day... at LEAST.

No, I think we'll be splitting the atom for a long time to come before a fusion solution we can see currently emerges. New science, and breakthroughs of course, are always welcome to make me look like a fool, and I'm thrilled when they do! I have very little hope for fusion as a viable source of energy in the grid, and if they did emerge we'd need MASSIVE storage to make it viable and serviceable.

Remember, what happens to pretty much EVERY material when it gets the tar knocked out of it by high energy neutron bombardments? BRITTLE... not what you want in your reactor blanket. That... and tritium... do much deuterium so little tritium.

 

[mugaliens]

I think the fusion dream will be far too late for anyone. I used to think that way, but managing the plasma with magnetic fields isn't exactly easy to scale... what a shock. Even more damning in my eyes, would be the reactor 'blanket', which right now would need to breed enough tritium to keep the reaction going, absorb and transfer enough energy aside from that to be a viable reactor, withstand nearly constant bombardment by high energy neutrons, and run at least 18 hours a day... at LEAST.

No, I think we'll be splitting the atom for a long time to come before a fusion solution we can see currently emerges. New science, and breakthroughs of course, are always welcome to make me look like a fool, and I'm thrilled when they do! I have very little hope for fusion as a viable source of energy in the grid, and if they did emerge we'd need MASSIVE storage to make it viable and serviceable.

Well, that sounds like you're talking about a tokamak. What about laser inertial confinement?

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, that sounds like you're talking about a tokamak. What about laser inertial confinement?

Impressive, but it's not about to make us rich with fusion power... the same issues are there, minus the confinement issues. A break-even reaction doesn't mean we actually get the energy we put into it back, just that the reaction itself yields as much or more than we put in. CAPTURING it... making that into a viable plant?... I have no idea.

Frankly I thought that blasting holraums was more about the study of nuclear weapons and high energy, as well as the study of fusion... not a viable reactor design.

 

[apeiron]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

President Barack Obama proposed on Monday boosting funds for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

The budget would also provide $853 million to support new nuclear energy technologies, such as small modular reactors.

To help pay for the clean energy initiatives, the White House is asking Congress to repeal $3.6 billion in oil, natural gas and coal subsidies, a move that would total $46.2 billion over a decade.

But many Republicans oppose cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, saying it would hurt industries that provide jobs while the economy is still fragile.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/us-usa-budget-energy-idUSTRE71D3V420110214

 

[nismaratwork]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

If he gets that through, I can take a little Good Old Party 'sticking it to the poor'. No offense R's, but each party has its "thing". Democrats want to save the unsalvageable, and Republicans want Darwin, Reagan, and Goldwater genetically merged into an Uber-president.

Both are frankly laughable to me, but that is my view only. I think this is clever... democrats will vocally oppose the president on cuts for "aid", the republicans will be complaining that... we don't subsidize coal. That is not the kind of situation you want to be in as a politician.

 

[apeiron]

If he gets that through, I can take a little Good Old Party 'sticking it to the poor'.

He has failed a few times already, apparently. So nice to see he is sticking at it.

And it is of course a global issue, though for a different reason in oil-producing nations with a large poor population to keep placated.

The imbalance between subsidies for fossil fuels and those for renewables is an issue faced by countries around the world. In a recent report, Bloomberg New Energy Finance calculated global fossil fuel subsidies at $557 billion, compared to $46 billion for renewable energy. In 2009, the G-20 nations pledged a reduction in their domestic fossil fuel subsidies, but little action has followed.

http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-third-times-the-charm/

 

[nismaratwork]

He has failed a few times already, apparently. So nice to see he is sticking at it.

And it is of course a global issue, though for a different reason in oil-producing nations with a large poor population to keep placated.

Agreed... and damn that is one depressing article.

 

[mugaliens]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

Oh. So that's where he's planning to spend http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_taxes" :

"Obama's proposal would extend tax credits for college expenses and expand them for child care. A more generous Earned Income Tax Credit for families with three or more children would be made permanent.

The plan would enhance and make permanent a popular business tax credit for research and development, and would provide tax breaks for investing in manufacturing and for making commercial buildings more energy efficient."​

It's a little early for him to start campaigning for a 2012 run, isn't it?